Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Flash Sucks, Its Official
Posted 18 November 2003 - 07:58 AM
quote from article:-
"If I'm going to a Web site, I want information. I want
information quickly. It could be written in 10 point pica
for all I care. I'm already interested in what might be
there, why turn me off?"
the whole article is here:-
It just goes to show what we have always known, that visitor content is SEO content.
So what about flash elements to brighten up a website then? IMO flash elements can be good, provided they are there for a specific reason and enhance the experience, and can not be obtained in any other way.
I used one to show how my paper scribbles can be turned into a website for the customer, many people have commented they liked this simple visual explanation, although it is still on the web it is long since out of date.
So what do we all think of flash or flash elements if they have a positive effect on your business conversion rate?
Posted 18 November 2003 - 08:57 AM
Posted 18 November 2003 - 09:09 AM
Well, if it's good, then fine. I personally hate flash. I search until I find the "skip intro" button.
When I find a site I think is worth investigating only to find flash, I leave immediately. I just don't have the patience.
Like my grandmother used to say "if it don't look good, don't stick it out on the front porch."
I am of the mind that there are 2 types of people who ADORE flash :
web designers and web site owners
Posted 18 November 2003 - 09:20 AM
I do like Flash that is used throughout site like in header animations or animated graphics with site. As long as the site contains plenty of html content, is easy to navigate and provides a good overall user experience, Flash can be incorporated to enhance the web site. Flash used in this way is good because Flash files are alot smaller than traditional gifs, jpegs or animated gifs.
But to have a all Flash intro page - !
Posted 18 November 2003 - 09:26 AM
It can be very difficult to talk this particular beast out of flash intros & splash pages, even with statistics like the former. We always insist on a skip intro button, and it is always in HTML outside the flash movie. If your skip intro button is part of the movie, those without flash are stuck!
I prefer flash in very small doses; the best use is to illustrate concepts or items that require animation for full comprehension (but you should still have a textual description). As for purely decorative flash, I can see some uses, but it should be in a minor role on the page (an animated header, for instance).
Posted 18 November 2003 - 09:38 AM
Therefore one has to offer both a all Flash site and a html version not only for the search engine's sakes but also for the end user who doesn't have a Flash plug-in or is on a dial up.
IMO, if a site is to be contained in a Flash movie, the only types of sites that should do this are those that are already well know suchs as musical groups (U2, Mariah Carey, Three Doors Down, etc.), movie sites (because they are short term in most cases anyway) and maybe product web sites that are very familiar (Mountain Dew, M&Ms, etc.). Otherwise, I think it is a bad marketing decision to do an all Flash site.
Posted 18 November 2003 - 10:39 AM
I am a java programmer. It was painful for a guy like me to force feed myself flash know how so I could include what flash I have on my site now. (VERY LITTLE!)
No one likes to be force fed a intro page.
The random and disjoined remarks listed here have no real relevance. I guess my point is Flash has its place in the web world, but should never be a full website solution.
Posted 18 November 2003 - 11:43 AM
If it's integrated in such a way that it's either unobtrusive or user initiated, great. But designing a system that you *know* is going to annoy enough people that you need to put on an off button just doesn't make sense.
When I use flash (and I admit I love it, lots of fun) it's either in a box on the page, navigation structure (with secondary text), or a user initiated pop-up or link.
In short, it's opt-in, not opt-out
Posted 18 November 2003 - 12:24 PM
Of course some commercials are better than the shows that they pay for.
I have seen this in some occasions on the Internet where the Flash intro was better than the web site behind it.
Posted 18 November 2003 - 02:02 PM
Posted 18 November 2003 - 05:37 PM
Because it has future. Most of the people have the plugin (as opposed to Java - "why is the applet not working? I have JDK 1.2, is it too old?"). A lot of people know how to create movies in it. The specification is freely available (you can use Ming library if you don't want to use Flash). And it is powerful. Even though it is not as programmer-friendly as Java, it is widely accepted and could easily drive Java out of business. Everything that can be done in Java can also be done in Flash.
But, you have to know when to and when not to use the Flash. You can use it for applications, small non-essential movies, but never for content - HTML is standard that does that and is good at its job (designers eat your hearts out). The G is said to have some limited capabilities in reading content from Flash movies, but so what - Flash movies do not have the URL that would sent the visitor to the place where the content is. The only thing the SE can do is put the user at the page where the Flash movie is and let the user wander through the animation to find the page it is looking for. Pretty useless if you ask me.
Anyway, nothing wrong with Flash intros if they are not intrusive - but nothing good about them either. Waste of time and money (for majority of the projects) if you ask me. But Flash sites? I just hope that they will go away to that place where the frames are (or at least should be - in every project I get I have to spend time telling clients why they shouldn't use frames - go figure ).
P.S.: As for Java - I am only talking about Java & Flash on the Web, not elsewhere.
Edited by anews, 18 November 2003 - 06:09 PM.
Posted 19 November 2003 - 04:53 PM
Posted 19 November 2003 - 04:55 PM
Posted 19 November 2003 - 10:09 PM
• load time
• "flashy" effects
• text (copy, paste, increase size...)
• search engine placement (not done in flash, but by providing a static alternative)
i believe the second one is the most recognized as the problem with flash sites. but arent there bad html sites? just because someone creates an annoying, impossible to navigate site using a certain program doesnt mean the program itself is bad. that's like saying you hate cd's because you bought a few that weren't any good. its not the medium, but the designer.
my only complaint with flash is the search engine problem. but that can easily be fixed by providing an html alternative. and as mentioned above, most companies with flash sites requested them rather than were influenced by an overenthusiastic flash designer. I have a client right now who wanted only flash, and although i told him it will never be good with search engines, he didnt care. and in the end, it's the client who makes the decisions, not me. as long as he pays me well i'll make him the most trendwhore site with all the annoying eye candy ...just not put it in my portfolio.
Edited by MG315, 19 November 2003 - 10:16 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users